Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221135509
Maureen Stobb, Banks Miller, Joshua B. Kennedy
At the center of contentious debates concerning U.S. asylum policy are immigration judges, bureaucrats who decide life and death cases on a daily basis. Congress, the executive and the courts compete for influence over these key actors — administrative judges distinct from those examined in much of the bureaucratic control literature. They are hired, fired, promoted or demoted by executive officials; face congressional oversight; and must follow circuit law. We argue that, because of the fear of reversal, immigration judges will look most to the courts in the decision-making process. Our results support our theory. Examining over 900,000 immigration judges’ decisions, we find that, although IJs are influenced by a fear of pushback from the elected branches, the impact is conditional on circuit preferences. Our findings inform scholarly understanding of judicial behavior and bureaucratic accountability, and support the pursuit of judicial independence and due process in immigration courts.
{"title":"Who Controls the Immigration Bureaucracy? The Relative Influence of the Three Branches Over Asylum Policy Implementation","authors":"Maureen Stobb, Banks Miller, Joshua B. Kennedy","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221135509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221135509","url":null,"abstract":"At the center of contentious debates concerning U.S. asylum policy are immigration judges, bureaucrats who decide life and death cases on a daily basis. Congress, the executive and the courts compete for influence over these key actors — administrative judges distinct from those examined in much of the bureaucratic control literature. They are hired, fired, promoted or demoted by executive officials; face congressional oversight; and must follow circuit law. We argue that, because of the fear of reversal, immigration judges will look most to the courts in the decision-making process. Our results support our theory. Examining over 900,000 immigration judges’ decisions, we find that, although IJs are influenced by a fear of pushback from the elected branches, the impact is conditional on circuit preferences. Our findings inform scholarly understanding of judicial behavior and bureaucratic accountability, and support the pursuit of judicial independence and due process in immigration courts.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41457360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-28DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221131556
Matthew J. Geras
This paper considers whether the rules governing state political parties help to explain primary election outcomes. I theorize political parties will see lower levels of competition during primary elections when they have bylaws that centralize power within the state central committee. To test this expectation, I created a dataset of state-level party rules by collecting and coding provisions within the bylaws of all 100 state-level Republican and Democratic parties. I operationalize party centralization of power as whether or not elected officials are represented within each party’s formal membership, their state central committee, and whether or not each party has an endorsement or neutrality policy when it comes to contested primaries. I find the centralization of party power does correlate with lower levels of competition in primary elections for the House of Representatives in 2018 and 2020. Specifically, parties are more likely to see uncontested primaries when they guarantee ex-officio state committee membership to their co-partisan elected officials and are more likely to see fewer candidates in general when they guarantee ex-officio state committee membership to their co-partisan elected officials and when they do not have rules that require the state central committee to remain neutral during contested primary elections. While evaluating the causes of this trend is beyond the scope of this paper, these findings appear to be driven by Republican primaries.
{"title":"Do Party Rules Matter? An Examination of State Party Bylaws and Congressional Nominations","authors":"Matthew J. Geras","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221131556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221131556","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers whether the rules governing state political parties help to explain primary election outcomes. I theorize political parties will see lower levels of competition during primary elections when they have bylaws that centralize power within the state central committee. To test this expectation, I created a dataset of state-level party rules by collecting and coding provisions within the bylaws of all 100 state-level Republican and Democratic parties. I operationalize party centralization of power as whether or not elected officials are represented within each party’s formal membership, their state central committee, and whether or not each party has an endorsement or neutrality policy when it comes to contested primaries. I find the centralization of party power does correlate with lower levels of competition in primary elections for the House of Representatives in 2018 and 2020. Specifically, parties are more likely to see uncontested primaries when they guarantee ex-officio state committee membership to their co-partisan elected officials and are more likely to see fewer candidates in general when they guarantee ex-officio state committee membership to their co-partisan elected officials and when they do not have rules that require the state central committee to remain neutral during contested primary elections. While evaluating the causes of this trend is beyond the scope of this paper, these findings appear to be driven by Republican primaries.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49004093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-22DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221135554
Scott J. LaCombe
There is significant disagreement on the moderating role of institutions on policy responsive- ness, yet overwhelmingly research in state politics has focused on single institutions. This project leverages a new aggregate scale of state institutions to evaluate if the collective insti- tutional context moderates the influence of public opinion on policy. I use a recently released latent scale of institutional context and find that high levels of accountability pressure strongly strengthen public opinion’s influence on policy for both economic and social policy, while the strength of a state’s checks and balance system is largely unrelated to policy responsiveness. These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating aggregate institutional design into our understanding of the role of institutions in state politics, and that collectively institutions play a large role in determining how public opinion is translated into policy.
{"title":"Institutional Design and Policy Responsiveness in US States","authors":"Scott J. LaCombe","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221135554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221135554","url":null,"abstract":"There is significant disagreement on the moderating role of institutions on policy responsive- ness, yet overwhelmingly research in state politics has focused on single institutions. This project leverages a new aggregate scale of state institutions to evaluate if the collective insti- tutional context moderates the influence of public opinion on policy. I use a recently released latent scale of institutional context and find that high levels of accountability pressure strongly strengthen public opinion’s influence on policy for both economic and social policy, while the strength of a state’s checks and balance system is largely unrelated to policy responsiveness. These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating aggregate institutional design into our understanding of the role of institutions in state politics, and that collectively institutions play a large role in determining how public opinion is translated into policy.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45619656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-17DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221132480
Martin Johnson, R. Stein
We identify in-person early voting and no-excuse mail voting as antidotes for the depressing effect inclement weather has on voter turnout and the Republican dividend that accompanies rain and snow on Election Day. We offer and test an explanation for how voters utilize early voting to anticipate and avoid the costs of voting in bad weather. Replicating and extending Gomez et al (2007) analysis through the 2016 election, we confirm the remedial effect in-person early voting and to a lesser degree no-excuse mail voting has on turnout and the Republican advantage when bad weather coincides with Election Day. Our work makes an important contribution to understanding how election laws effect voter participation. We discuss how taking seriously treatment effect heterogeneity both in theoretical and empirical analyses might contribute to our understanding of the effects of election laws on voter participation.
{"title":"Mitigating the Turnout Effects of Bad Weather With Early Voting: 1948–2016","authors":"Martin Johnson, R. Stein","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221132480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221132480","url":null,"abstract":"We identify in-person early voting and no-excuse mail voting as antidotes for the depressing effect inclement weather has on voter turnout and the Republican dividend that accompanies rain and snow on Election Day. We offer and test an explanation for how voters utilize early voting to anticipate and avoid the costs of voting in bad weather. Replicating and extending Gomez et al (2007) analysis through the 2016 election, we confirm the remedial effect in-person early voting and to a lesser degree no-excuse mail voting has on turnout and the Republican advantage when bad weather coincides with Election Day. Our work makes an important contribution to understanding how election laws effect voter participation. We discuss how taking seriously treatment effect heterogeneity both in theoretical and empirical analyses might contribute to our understanding of the effects of election laws on voter participation.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47682667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-11DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221132479
B. Zheng
A central challenge for citizens is to understand how their political system works. The classic “Levels of Conceptualization” measure proposed in The American Voter provided an answer for White Americans in the 1950s, but has limited relevance today for citizens of non-European ancestry. Expanding on the work of Campbell et al., this paper develops a measure of Political Conceptualization that combines views about parties and candidates with views on personal identity and ethnic fairness. The measure is based on open-ended responses in a survey of Asian Americans and Latinos. Results show how, across these quite different domains of politics, citizens vary in their Political Conceptualizations from narrow and concrete to broad and abstract. Results highlight the challenge for political organizers in building coalitions among citizens who vary in their understanding of how politics works.
{"title":"Asian and Latino American Political Conceptualization: A Dual-Concept Model","authors":"B. Zheng","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221132479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221132479","url":null,"abstract":"A central challenge for citizens is to understand how their political system works. The classic “Levels of Conceptualization” measure proposed in The American Voter provided an answer for White Americans in the 1950s, but has limited relevance today for citizens of non-European ancestry. Expanding on the work of Campbell et al., this paper develops a measure of Political Conceptualization that combines views about parties and candidates with views on personal identity and ethnic fairness. The measure is based on open-ended responses in a survey of Asian Americans and Latinos. Results show how, across these quite different domains of politics, citizens vary in their Political Conceptualizations from narrow and concrete to broad and abstract. Results highlight the challenge for political organizers in building coalitions among citizens who vary in their understanding of how politics works.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42381624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-08DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221131561
James A. Piazza, Natalia Van Doren
Is approval of Donald J. Trump associated with support for political violence? If so, what explains the link between Trump approval and political violence? Using an original, nationally representative survey of over 1,500 adults in the United States we produce two findings. First, individuals who express approval for Trump are also significantly more likely to endorse positive descriptors for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and are more likely express support for the use of political violence more broadly. Second, the effects of Trump approval on support for the use of political violence are mediated through racist and xenophobic attitudes. Trump supporters in the study disproportionately exhibit racist and xenophobic/anti-foreigner attitudes, and these attitudes are associated with a positive endorsement of both January 6 and the use of political violence.
{"title":"It’s About Hate: Approval of Donald Trump, Racism, Xenophobia and Support for Political Violence","authors":"James A. Piazza, Natalia Van Doren","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221131561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221131561","url":null,"abstract":"Is approval of Donald J. Trump associated with support for political violence? If so, what explains the link between Trump approval and political violence? Using an original, nationally representative survey of over 1,500 adults in the United States we produce two findings. First, individuals who express approval for Trump are also significantly more likely to endorse positive descriptors for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and are more likely express support for the use of political violence more broadly. Second, the effects of Trump approval on support for the use of political violence are mediated through racist and xenophobic attitudes. Trump supporters in the study disproportionately exhibit racist and xenophobic/anti-foreigner attitudes, and these attitudes are associated with a positive endorsement of both January 6 and the use of political violence.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47754022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-03DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221112632
Patrick Flavin
Citizens in a democracy expect elected officials will be responsive to their political opinions and govern in an effective way that improves their quality of life. However, a government that is too responsive to public sentiments may, in practice, be unable to govern effectively and promote societal well-being. This study is the first attempt to date to empirically evaluate this important potential tradeoff. Using newly developed measures of public opinion and public policy liberalism in the American states over time and a diverse battery of societal outcomes as well as multiple estimation strategies and timeframes, I find a weak and directionally inconsistent statistical relationship between policy responsiveness and government effectiveness. These findings have significant normative and theoretical implications because they suggest there is not a tradeoff between a government responding to its citizens’ opinions and it governing effectively by promoting citizens’ well-being.
{"title":"Is There a Tradeoff Between Policy Responsiveness and Government Effectiveness? Evidence From the American States","authors":"Patrick Flavin","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221112632","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221112632","url":null,"abstract":"Citizens in a democracy expect elected officials will be responsive to their political opinions and govern in an effective way that improves their quality of life. However, a government that is too responsive to public sentiments may, in practice, be unable to govern effectively and promote societal well-being. This study is the first attempt to date to empirically evaluate this important potential tradeoff. Using newly developed measures of public opinion and public policy liberalism in the American states over time and a diverse battery of societal outcomes as well as multiple estimation strategies and timeframes, I find a weak and directionally inconsistent statistical relationship between policy responsiveness and government effectiveness. These findings have significant normative and theoretical implications because they suggest there is not a tradeoff between a government responding to its citizens’ opinions and it governing effectively by promoting citizens’ well-being.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48773127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-15DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221125713
Jessica D. Blankshain, D. Glick, Danielle L. Lupton
During the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders and society at large invoked militarized rhetoric and war metaphors to elevate essential workers and inspire collective action. Using a survey experiment we investigate whether this type of framing affects public views about (1) individual responsibilities, (2) targeted polices, and (3) perceptions of those called heroes and soldiers. We find that the war metaphor has minimal effects on public attitudes toward policies and individual actions in response to the pandemic. Framing the response in militaristic terms does, however, appear to affect perceptions of essential workers. Counter to our hypotheses, subjects who saw essential workers called heroes or soldiers viewed them as more motivated by compensation rather than service, and expressed less respect for them, than respondents in the control. These findings, including the nulls, make important contributions to our understanding of the limits of framing effects in a polarized context.
{"title":"War Metaphors (What Are They Good For?): Militarized Rhetoric and Attitudes Toward Essential Workers During the Covid-19 Pandemic","authors":"Jessica D. Blankshain, D. Glick, Danielle L. Lupton","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221125713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221125713","url":null,"abstract":"During the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders and society at large invoked militarized rhetoric and war metaphors to elevate essential workers and inspire collective action. Using a survey experiment we investigate whether this type of framing affects public views about (1) individual responsibilities, (2) targeted polices, and (3) perceptions of those called heroes and soldiers. We find that the war metaphor has minimal effects on public attitudes toward policies and individual actions in response to the pandemic. Framing the response in militaristic terms does, however, appear to affect perceptions of essential workers. Counter to our hypotheses, subjects who saw essential workers called heroes or soldiers viewed them as more motivated by compensation rather than service, and expressed less respect for them, than respondents in the control. These findings, including the nulls, make important contributions to our understanding of the limits of framing effects in a polarized context.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45158815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-14DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221125222
Andrew Gooch
Politicians who switch policy positions are often criticized for being inconsistent “flip-floppers”, which suggests a valence penalty for repositioning. Using a survey experiment with six treatment conditions and a sample of 2694 respondents, results show that candidates receive an increase in favorability and perceived competency when holding a consistent position on asylum seekers from the campaign to holding office. Repositioning on asylum seekers reduces favorability and perceived competency. However, in treatment conditions where the candidate is criticized for “flip-flopping” by unelected groups, candidate favorability improves relative to a treatment condition where only the repositioning is presented. These results suggest that a backfire effect might occur from criticisms. This backfire occurs on average across all respondents. This study contributes to the line of research that shows mechanisms that offset the negative effects of repositioning.
{"title":"Candidate Repositioning, Valence, and a Backfire Effect from Criticism","authors":"Andrew Gooch","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221125222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221125222","url":null,"abstract":"Politicians who switch policy positions are often criticized for being inconsistent “flip-floppers”, which suggests a valence penalty for repositioning. Using a survey experiment with six treatment conditions and a sample of 2694 respondents, results show that candidates receive an increase in favorability and perceived competency when holding a consistent position on asylum seekers from the campaign to holding office. Repositioning on asylum seekers reduces favorability and perceived competency. However, in treatment conditions where the candidate is criticized for “flip-flopping” by unelected groups, candidate favorability improves relative to a treatment condition where only the repositioning is presented. These results suggest that a backfire effect might occur from criticisms. This backfire occurs on average across all respondents. This study contributes to the line of research that shows mechanisms that offset the negative effects of repositioning.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49653327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-14DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221125449
Sean Richey
Patriotism is conceived of as a national-level concept. I posit that people hold similarly strong feelings toward their municipal area. Based on long-standing the- ories of patriotism in national politics, I show how local patriotism influences local politics. Using novel preregistered survey data from an online sample matched to nationally representative data in terms of gender, age, and race, I show that people have feelings of love, indifference, or hate toward their municipality. I also find a strong positive correlation between loving one’s municipality and partici-pation in local politics, civic participation, and trust in local government. I also conducted two preregistered survey experiments that show that priming feelings of love and/or hate towards one’s town strongly motivates the willingness to sac-rifice to solve local collective action problems. Specifically, stimuli that evoked these feelings made participants much more likely to donate the payment they earned from completing the survey to solve a town problem. These results show the crucial importance of local patriotism for understanding local politics.
{"title":"The Influence of Local Patriotism on Participation in Local Politics, Civic participation, Trust in Local Government and Collective Action","authors":"Sean Richey","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221125449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221125449","url":null,"abstract":"Patriotism is conceived of as a national-level concept. I posit that people hold similarly strong feelings toward their municipal area. Based on long-standing the- ories of patriotism in national politics, I show how local patriotism influences local politics. Using novel preregistered survey data from an online sample matched to nationally representative data in terms of gender, age, and race, I show that people have feelings of love, indifference, or hate toward their municipality. I also find a strong positive correlation between loving one’s municipality and partici-pation in local politics, civic participation, and trust in local government. I also conducted two preregistered survey experiments that show that priming feelings of love and/or hate towards one’s town strongly motivates the willingness to sac-rifice to solve local collective action problems. Specifically, stimuli that evoked these feelings made participants much more likely to donate the payment they earned from completing the survey to solve a town problem. These results show the crucial importance of local patriotism for understanding local politics.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41585632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：